We are the 1%

[oldhat]

Thought this was an interesting article (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-8?page=1#sort-comments) in light of today's news story that the richest 1% will own more than half the world's wealth by 2016 (i.e., next year).

Salient points:



$3,650 puts you in the top half of the world, wealth-wise
$77,000 puts you in the top 10%
$798,000 puts you in the top 1%
$1 million puts you in the top 0.7%
There about 35 million people in the 1%


As the article points out, this means being in the top 1% is within the reach of most of the professional class in the industrialized world (including, I would guess, at least some of the denizens of this discussion group).

[rodeosweetheart]

I'm not sure of your point. Who is "we"? I do not qualify as a member of "we", and I thought I was a member of the forum group?

So if you owe more in student loans, say, than you have in net worth, are you in "the great unwashed" or something? Are you the servant class, rather than the masters of the universe class?

I imagine some, maybe many folks here have over 798k, and I imagine many more probably have under 798k.

[iris lilies]

I'm not sure of your point. Who is "we"? I do not qualify as a member of "we", and I thought I was a member of the forum group?

So if you owe more in student loans, say, than you have in net worth, are you in "the great unwashed" or something? Are you the servant class, rather than the masters of the universe class?

I imagine some, maybe many folks here have over 798k, and I imagine many more probably have under 798k.

The point is that a mind-shift from victim mentality (as in "I am poor/those evil 1 per-centers keep me down") to a broader view of my economic place in the world is sometimes a good starting place from which to view life. Glass empty or full, etc.

YMMV.

[ApatheticNoMore]

So if you owe more in student loans, say, than you have in net worth, are you in "the great unwashed" or something? Are you the servant class, rather than the masters of the universe class?

it depends, such things are too complex to be taken by one measure. So you have student loans, if whatever degree you have put you in a position to have job security from here on out (there are maybe not that many degrees that do at this point, but an MD for example would), then you are probably FAR better off than the person who works a low or even mid wage job even if they have managed somehow to avoid all debt and even save a little.

On the other hand some people find their degrees of little worth. Don't know how true that is (based on BLS stats more degrees do mean less likely to be unemployed but that is AN AVERAGE - if one has a masters, and has been unable to find work in 3 years and the loan collectors keep calling anyway, that average doesn't apply to them!).


I imagine some, maybe many folks here have over 798k, and I imagine many more probably have under 798k.

What are we even measuring by this? A couple with 798k or a single person with 798k so that a couple would have 2 times 798k? I make no claim to having boatloads of money either way, but I do see how it would be easier for two income earners to amass that obviously. They earn twice as much.

I also don't think it really makes much sense to compare 1st world (yea I don't exactly want to call the U.S. first world either) incomes with 3rd world incomes as the cost of living isn't the same. What are we talking about in terms of "owning" "wealth"? If someone owns a patch of land in California maybe it's worth 798k but do they really "own" that much more in any real sense? Now when your talking about controlling interest or even some ownership in corporations etc. then your talking ownership that actually comes with some power. But owning the dirt you live on, maybe better or not, but doesn't necessarily make you that much richer because the dirt happens to be somewhere with a high cost of living.

[iris lilies]

Median net worth of Americans is $81,200* so we are in the top 10%.

*http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/09/18/stock-gains-lift-us-household-wealth-to-a-record/15830331/

[rodeosweetheart]

The point is that a mind-shift from victim mentality (as in "I am poor/those evil 1 per-centers keep me down") to a broaded view of my economaic place in the world is sometimes a good starting place from which to view life. Glass empty or full, etc.

YMMV.

Who has a victim mentality? Now I am really lost, lol! I know I am extremely lucky to have what I have, and I don't get how the original statistics encourage any mind shift?

As to third and first world, I find it odd that several times, we have sent $500 to Smile Train and purchased cleft palate surgery for two children; yet if one of my grandchildren were born with a cleft palate, there is no way I could afford to help my children get that surgery done for my grandchild.

So I am not really sure what these statistics even attempt to measure.

[Florence]

My husband grew up in a home without plumbing. He got a new pair of sneakers and new jeans once a year when school started. You get the picture. Through education, hard work, and common sense, we are in the 1%.

[Packy]

Americans: We Make It Big, And We Spend It Big!

[gwendolyn]

Jeez, does anyone ever look at the actual data that is being cherry-picked for consumer publications, let alone actually think about what that data means, before knee-jerking? This was one graph from a 156 page report, folks, taken out of context. (https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02)

First off, radiosweetheart, net worth would necessarily take into account your student loans: assets - liabilities = net worth = wealth (check the footnote to the graph if you don't believe me.) I know many young adults have negative net worth these days thanks to just that math.

Secondly, a point of the statistic is that almost 70% of the world has less than a total of $10,000 in assets, so US graduates are in good company in their poverty. Doesn't that make you feel less defensive and more comfortable in your economic insecurity now? (that's just humorous sarcasm, please don't be offended anyone!)

Thirdly, the differential is so extreme on the two ends of the spectrum, that a mere $10K in net worth lands you in the very small ranks of the 10% of the world's population that owns 97.1% of all the world's wealth. Now you should really feel like vast (relative) wealth is within your grasp!

So in other words, if you were to distribute the meager 2.9% of the global wealth owned collectively by the 69.8% of the world who owns it, each person in that group of "the meek" would have a net worth of $2,324. If we siphon off the amount of wealth owned by the richest 0.7%, and if then the remainder was distributed evenly among those of us in that "middle" range, each of us middle folks would have $98,389 - 42x the wealth of the meek. But that's not necessarily real life for all those middler's, is it - thank you ApatheticNoMore!

And hey, if we subtract out the 15.2million refugees worldwide in that lowest-wealth 69.8% of the world, because they are presumed to have zero net worth, then things are looking a lot better for all the poor people out there with a wealth estimate now of $2,336 per person, rather than $2,324 - whew! (That's a statistical gain in wealth of 47%-of-one percent -- hey that's better than the interest rate on my savings account!)

But, just for the sake of comparison, if we instead took out the .7% of folks at the top, and added their wealth to the middle... (not physically, just statistically of course, and we wouldn't want to give any of that money to the poor or the refugees, would we?) then the middle-range folks, who otherwise would only happily have something -- anything -- greater than $2,336 average in net worth, (hey, we're not poor!)... They'd then have an average of a whopping $179,916 in wealth -- or an 83% rise in wealth. That's 1.419 trillion people folks whose average wealth would almost double if it weren't all getting siphoned up by .7% of the population. Aren't statistics fun?

[oldhat]

Goodness gracious! I really didn't have an agenda in my original post, I just thought they were interesting numbers. But on reflection, if I did want to make a point, it was twofold:

--People who live in the industrialized world are rich, relatively speaking. The poorest person in the US is rich compared to most people in the third world.

--This doesn't mean there isn't economic injustice in rich countries, especially the US. The richest rich (I mean the top 0.01% in the US) are obscenely rich. (Personally, I'd like to see a return to Republican top marginal tax rates. Under Eisenhower, that is.)

The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[rodeosweetheart]

"First off, radiosweetheart, net worth would necessarily take into account your student loans: assets - liabilities = net worth = wealth (check the footnote to the graph if you don't believe me.) I know many young adults have negative net worth these days thanks to just that math.

Secondly, a point of the statistic is that almost 70% of the world has less than a total of $10,000 in assets, so US graduates are in good company in their poverty. Doesn't that make you feel less defensive and more comfortable in your economic insecurity now? (that's just humorous sarcasm, please don't be offended anyone!)"

If this was addressed to me, and it seems to be, then I just wanted to point out I know how to figure out net worth, and that was why I used the hypothetical person with student loan debt. I thought the concept made a point about life in these United States these days for a lot of people.

While I don't personally have student loan debts, many, many people do, and they are not all young adults. Please check out the data on older adults with student loans; it is not a pretty picture as people try to adapt their job skills to a changing economy.

I guess I wanted to point out that it's not just young adults starting out that have a negative net worth, and the entrance into some "professional" class is not any guarantee that one will end up having more of the world's resources attached to one's name. My 89 year old father-in-law, a lifelong Episcopal priest and war hero, got foreclosed on in his home.

So while my personal economy may be much closer to the percentages on the "have" side of the equation, I just was a bit bothered and confused by the use of the personal pronoun "we" to approach the numbers, and wanted to point out other angles to the argument. I apologize if I came off as defensive, I am blessed not to have student loans, to have a paid for house, etc. But I am also aware, because of health issues and the fact that I have to take care of other people in my life with money that comes my way--currently 3 generations of other people--that wealth is a shifting and ephemeral concept. My net worth is made up of my relationships with my family, how I can be of service to my community-- I guess I think of it that way.

Cheers, and to prosperity for all living creatures!

[LDAHL]

Well, my retirement accounts are at about $800K. My home equity would cover the deferred taxes, so I meet the criteria on a cash-out basis. Maybe I should quit thinking of myself as struggling middle class, even with the President outlining his new collection of Robin Hood proposals tonight.

[iris lilies]

Well, my retirement accounts are at about $800K. My home equity would cover the deferred taxes, so I meet the criteria on a cash-out basis. Maybe I should quit thinking of myself as struggling middle class, even with the President outlining his new collection of Robin Hood proposals tonight.

I think you should think of yourself as evil as in The Evil 1%. yeah, that's the ticket!

And I'm there with you.

:laff:

[LDAHL]

I think you should think of yourself as evil as in The Evil 1%. yeah, that's the ticket!

And I'm there with you.

:laff:

You're right. I've crushed the poor in my ruthless rise to power.

See you at Davos.

[catherine]

The "1%" aren't evil--but when the headlines say that only 1% will own most of the world's wealth by 2016, it's clear to me that that gives power to a very, very small minority of people. Money isn't good or bad, but there is danger in this kind of inequality--it's not sustainable. Look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and even the American Revolution began when we perceived we were getting the raw end of the deal from a tax & political power perspective. Did our Founding Fathers suffer from a victim complex?

What I took away from the article was not, "Hey just a few hundred thousand more and I get to say I'm in that Special Club"--my take-away was, I wonder what life will be like when a handful of inordinately wealthy people have bought the government? Actually that's happening already.

[sweetana3]

Just study the history of the UK and India for issues of wealth and class are brought up. They both boiled the frog and unless the wealthy were able to figure out how to hold onto their income producing land, they lost most of what they had.

[LDAHL]

The "1%" aren't evil--but when the headlines say that only 1% will own most of the world's wealth by 2016, it's clear to me that that gives power to a very, very small minority of people. Money isn't good or bad, but there is danger in this kind of inequality--it's not sustainable. Look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and even the American Revolution began when we perceived we were getting the raw end of the deal from a tax & political power perspective. Did our Founding Fathers suffer from a victim complex?

What I took away from the article was not, "Hey just a few hundred thousand more and I get to say I'm in that Special Club"--my take-away was, I wonder what life will be like when a handful of inordinately wealthy people have bought the government? Actually that's happening already.

Well, until the community organizers come to take me to the re-education camp, I plan to enjoy my little piece of capitalism guilt and paranoia-free.

[catherine]

Well, until the community organizers come to take me to the re-education camp, I plan to enjoy my little piece of capitalism guilt and paranoia-free.

As you should..

Just keep this in mind:


Jefferson famously wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." He declared the need to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/paul-ryan-american-values_b_991817.html

Enjoy the fruits of your labor, but realize that when individuals (and corporations are now "individuals" apparently) can buy the government, those individuals will have bartered away our freedom without our consent.

[zeaxmays]

http://i.imgur.com/ThIqI.jpg

[iris lilies]

http://i.imgur.com/ThIqI.jpg

this made me snort-laugh.

[kib]

+1